The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

I have to say, the way it was written was very good.

It sounded like they had genuinely created an idea that was driving fundamental change.

The paper was full of superlatives.

Full of audacious claims.

It was also full of shit.

Stripping things back, all they had actually done was launch a PR campaign with a big and exciting sounding name.

I’m not saying it wasn’t effective.

Nor am I saying it was bad.

But compared to what was claimed, it was pants.

But what made it really stand out was the following paper I read.

It was equally well written, but this was without hyperbole.

Don’t get me wrong, they weren’t playing down what they had created they just weren’t trying to insinuate it was the second coming of Christ.

Which was interesting, because it was genuinely using creativity in a powerful, effective and interesting way.

All wrapped up with a campaign name that was almost deceptively simple.

Having been on a lot of creative and effectiveness judging panels over the years, I’ve seen this time and time again which has led me to forming what I will call – for ego reasons and the novelty of it not being associated with being in trouble with the authorities – Campbell’s Law.

Campbell’s Law states:
The more grandiose or superlative-ridden a creative campaign name or description is given, the more boring and safe the reality of the execution.

I assure you, should you be invited to any future creative judging panel, it will save you sooooooo much time going through all the submissions.